♪ >> ask new york city about new

york city at nycgo.com. >> the damage is simply extraordinary. >> i have never seen anything like it. i would say it is about a third of the park that's been impacted. we are in the process of removing well over 200 feet every day. >> donate and support one of the biggest relief efforts in our parks history. ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ [applause]

>> our national parks belong to all of us. they are places of discovery. they are places of inspiration. they are america's

him and made him a president, that is great thing and we are

proud of that. you are the beginning of a change. he did go for a change, but obama is a glimpse in the dark for the four years or the next eight years and i'm afraid that we may go back to square one. who will... how can you guarantee after obama? can you guarantee after obama how america will be governed? no one can guarantee america. we are content and happy if obama can stay forever as the president of the united states of america. >> rose: and then there was iranian president ahmadinejad who had this to say. >> ( translated ): the time has come to an end for those who define democracy and freedom and set standards while they themselves are the first who violated fundamental principles. they can no longer be both in fact the judge and the executor and challenge real

democratically established governments. so i'd like that say again the time has passed for a group of people to believe that they aclone define concepts such as democracy and freedom and hold up the criteria for these definitions while simultaneously violating the very principles to which they aspire. governments can continue which are based on the rule of people. the awakening of nations and the expansion of freedom worldwide will no longer allow others to continue their hypocrisy and vicious attitudes. because of these reasons, most nations-- including the people of the united states-- are waiting for real and profound

changes. >> rose: some of these heads of state attending the united nations general assembly will be going to pittsburgh tomorrow for the g-20 conference looking at global economic issues. in new york today was white house chief of staff rahm emanuel who serves in one of washington's most powerful positions. the "new york times" reported of his role in the administration "at times it seems as if mr. emanuel as white house chief of staff, political director, legislative director and communications director all rolled into one. he is emerging as perhaps the most influential white house chief of staff in a generation. he is at the center of president obama's response to a full slate of difficult issues, including the wars in afghanistan and iraq, the middle east conflict, health care, and jobs." i am pleased to have rahm emanuel back on this program. welcome. >> rose: thank you, charlie. >> rose: good to see you at this table in new york city. >> nice to be at this table. feels like old family times. >> rose: (laughs) yes, indeed. and three raipls have been right

here. >> it's only fiting we're back. it's quiet again. the other two aren't here. rahm emanuel. raipl. >> tell me what the president wants to sty the u.n. and to the g-20 about his leadership and what he expects from the rest of the world. >> well, you know, i just left his speech at the united nations. obviously the major economies of the g-20 will be gathering in pittsburgh and that the challenges that we have today can only be met by moving together to solve them, whether that's from climate change, working on nonproliferation, nuclear disarmament, those are challenges that have to be collectively met. the united states commits to working with other countries in pursuit of those goals because they're common threats. we where it comes to our self-defense, obviously, we act when it's appropriate and

accordingly, but the challenges in speaking to a world body-- be they on economic or national security matters-- are challenges of the nature that require action and collective action and america will lead, but that does not take away from the responsibilities others have to lead and what they say in private should no longer just in b in private when they have a responsibility to speak up in public and be part of solving these problems. >> rose: you are... >> he just delivered that message very forcefully i thought at the united nations today. >> rose: global cooperation is essential. >> but also with the rights that people seek come responsibilities. and that means the responsibility of countries in that body take up the challenges that they collectively have and in specific areas, but that in the middle east peace process, etc., to be a partner in solving these solutions rather than standing back and only allow the united states or individual countries to act when they require collective action and being a partner to that, that means they have responsibilities

not just claiming what rights they have. >> rose: okay. it also means that the president can't just lay out an agenda and give expression to ideas. there has to be action. and some are saying... a in a recent "new york times" piece over the weekend, a big piece said... you're smiling because you read the same stories. >> no, i'm just... well.... >> rose: saying that there's a lot of... from chai trow a whole range of other places, the united nations, the president is brilliant in laying out goals but they can't seem to get an action agenda and results and traction. whether it's afghanistan, climate change, or other big issues. >> well, first of all, i disagree with the premise of the analysis. >> rose: premise and the analysis. >> i do. let's just take a couple places. everybody just... when the president got into... was elected... i mean, you've got to

go... maybe some people have short term memory. mine still seems to be working quite well. we were faced with the worse economic situation since the great depression. america was bogged down in two wars, committed to two wars, one of them was literally called the forgotten war, the other one was a place america had been involved in longer than world war ii. and you had a resurgent iran, a situation where there was no cooperation or strategy on north korea as well as you can take other places, pakistan, which was a country of concern as related to its nuclear arms and where it was. we had a set of policies and confrontations and conditions, rather, they were quite challenging. we went to the g-20 and we mobilized the rest of the countries to act as you saw today in the paper, in fact, because of the stimulus action of the united states took in calling out other countries to do it, the economies of the world individually and collectively have pulled back from the worst challenge of the

great depression. now, we're not out of the woods yet by any stretch of the imagination. but it was america's leadership, being challenged by others who said that wasn't the right strategy, laid down the strategy got other countries to follow that strategy and have pulled themselves back not just through the recovery act that we enacted here but through the type of things that we did on our financial system with the stress test and the clarity that have brought us back from the worst economic conditions here at home around the world, and people credit the united states for leading that effort. that's a. you know, i remember when we met in chicago during the transition i asked secretary gates what he thought was probably one of the top two or three most serious strategic challenges we had and he says pakistan. nuclear... a country with nuclear weapons, a taliban that was on the move and a government that didn't seem ready to meet that challenge. today in pakistan the armed forces are out of their barracks and on the battlefield

challenging the taliban. and it's in a different position than it was. we're not out of the woods there yet. but from what we inherited eight months ago, totally different. now i can go down that list. north korea, there's a collective sense of action both by russia and china with the united states and japan and south korea about what we have to do and the type of sanctions we've imposed and now north korea has seen that collective action in unison is talking and acting in a different way. so you can go in different places and see changes on the economic front, the national security front, and the cooperation we're getting on both sides from our allies around the world. so the notion that you haven't said that these lofty speeches with lofty goals, he has set the goals, he has also got collective action and in place to place you're seeing improvement from where you were eight months ago. now not everyday... not to overuse a metaphor, not everyday is election day. you can taken a assessment of where you are. but on north korea we're in a different place than what we inherited and improved.

in pakistan, improved. in iran as it related to... the way it was acting in the region, it's now back on its heel rather than being the kind of power that everybody was.... >> rose: that has nothing to do with what we did, did it. that's what the iranian people had to do. >> well, i happen to disagree. >> rose: well, tell me why. >> there was a reaction in the rejohn that speech in cairo. >> rose: clearly there was. >> and there was also then an a reaction by the iranianings.... >> rose: there's a drekt link between the cairo speech and the protests that followed the election? >> in lebanon and how the iranians viewed the lebanese election. and what you had was a country that now is in a... is in my view in the region-- and not just my view, the assessment of a lot of others-- it is not the 800-pound gorilla that it was that we inherited if you look at where it was eight months ago mainly because of the divisions between the power centers and the government and its people. it is viewed differently because of the results of the election and what happened.

and it is not just a cause/effect but it is... that election was impacted by the policies of the united states... most important thing, as he said today, the president in his speech in the united nations, having removed t united states as the organizing principle for people just to complain about not doing something. showing our leadership, setting our goals and the means to get those goals has changed the dynamics. so in places around the world. charlie, you have to... you analyze this not just by where we are at just this moment-- although that's one assessment-- you analyze it but what you inherited and where we are on that pencil. and i think that's.... >> rose: tell me where we are. >> the economy is different. again, not out of the woods but we were literally staring over the abyss. the world was divided about what was the right course of action. the united states through two steps-- one on the financial side, the other through economic stimulus to the economy-- moved the united states, got other countries to follow that same kind of model and the world

economy-- let alone the united states-- pulled from the brink. we have a lot of work to do for steady growth. that's just one example. >> rose: let me take them one by one. first of all you mentioned iran. president ahmadinejad is also speaking to the united nations general assembly today. is is president obama's message to him about the wishes of the united states to engage with the government of iran that's in power today. >> here's a... let's just take one look at that because your question is obviously trying to go at what i said earlier. as the president of iran comes up and speaks, the world will view him different because of what happened in iran, and it's not just a coincidence. it's not just because president obama got elected and he gave a speech, but a series of things that happened that has opened up fissures inside iran. and he will be viewed different by the other bodies, by the other countries of that body.

the president's point, as you know, october 1, the p 5 plus one will be meeting. his point is as the president laid out, there's a place for engagement, for... iran has choice to make, whether they want to be responsible members of the international community and what are the enticements to be part of that or one that's more of a pariah. >> rose: well, does that choice have to be made and how will it be expressed before there is serious engagement between the united states and snern >> you work on both levels simultaneously. they know there are opportunities to being a member of the international community and there's consequences to acting as a state that doesn't take the responsibilities as a member of the international community. >> rose: what is our message to the israelis if they decide they want to take military action at some point? >> that i wouldn't do even though i would like that do it. >> rose: what would you like to say? (laughs) >> that is something i'm not going to comment on here. >> rose: okay. but the message to iran, if, in

fact, you show-- which is a condition-- if, in fact, you show that you want to be part of the community of nations, we're prepared to engage you on all bilateral relationships that exist, whether it has to do with you stopping enriching nuclear fuel. >> a nuclearized iran is a threat to the the region. >> rose: everybody knows that. everybody knows that. >> but as the president was quite clear in both bilateral meetings as well as he's been in his communication to the iranian government, they have a choice to make. they know the opportunitys of those choices and the consequences of those choices. and they will... but what will not happen is, as the president said, merely talking for the sake of talking. they know, as yogi berra once said, when you get to a fork in the road, take it. they're coming upon that place where they have to choose what type of country they're going to be. >> rose: how do they make that choice? i just want to stay with it. >> charlie, maybe you need to

get them here to talk. that's not my responsibility to represent the iranian people. >> rose: but you have to tell me what the government has to make in order to be engaged by the united states. >> it's not engagement for the sake of engagement. >> rose: right. >> they understand as it relates to a nuclear iran what are the consequences of that choice. now, they know what they have to do. they know what the p-5 plus one.... >> rose: is it because we told them it's communicated to them? >> they are aware of the issues. but it's not just a issue, there's a series of issues that relate to what the opportunity of what engagement means and the opportunity of being a country that is not engaged. >> rose: and it also has to do with israeli/palestinian issues? >> a whole host of issues. and there's a whole host of issues... they understand them. they, as you know, community kated willingness with the united states to discuss the range of issues, both in the region and their role in that. >> rose: do you think they could will helpful on snafz the

iranians? >> yes, they can, they can be helpful. as you know, secretary holbrooke participated in an international conference in which they attended and they have interests there as well in a stable afghanistan. >> rose: they're very interested in that. and they're not a friend of the taliban, are they? >> you know the history as well as i do. >> rose: with respect to the middle east, the president clearly disappointed that it hadn't started. he tried to add a sense of urgency for the process to start. today's paper have stories of reconsidering question of settlements. where is the president on an issue of concern to both parties on settlements? >> well, he was.... >> rose: has he changed? >> no. i mean, he was very clear to both parties about the importance of getting the peace process started. second, he spoke.... >> rose: and disappointed that it had not happened by this time. >> disappointed for them. >> rose: right. >> they lived side by side.

you can't want this more than they want it. they have a responsibility to their people if they want to make peace and have i a two-state solution that's based on the principles of past israeli governments and past american presidents regardless of party have endorsed. as have past palestinian leaders. they have a responsibility. we don't have... we can't want this more than they want it. >> rose: and do you believe they want it? >> i do... i believe.... >> rose: on both sides? >> yes, i do. >> rose: and they're willing to grable with issues like settlements that divide them. >> well.... >> rose: and we have influence with the israeli government on settlements question and they're throng what we say. >> we have a very deep relationship with the government of... not just this government of israel but the country of israel as it relates to its security.... >> rose: as the netanyahu government disappointed you about... >> the president was clear about the issue of the settlements. let's step back. as he has said repeatedly, no president has gone in front of

the arab world and talked about the right of israel to exist as he did in the cairo speech and that america's friendship with israel is deep and unbending and can't be broken. he has also... and is willing to be, as he has always said, when it comes to friendship to being honest. he believes settlements that can be provocative to a peace process in the negative sense... now, the israeli government has made a step that other israeli governments haven't made to date but it's not everything the palestinians want. on the other hand, the palestinians today are in a stronger position than they've ever been to engage in a peace process to finally achieve the goals for the palestinian people. >> rose: because of things that they have done, the palestinians themselves have done. >> and the president's message, i think, to both parties was i think very proper. at some point you have to show a little impatience. they have got to want this and if they want to get started on the road to building that peace, they have got not only to want it now put aside the talks and

the negotiations about the negotiations and begin the negotiations. and you can't start as if there hasn't been a process. on the other hand you have to also acknowled new government that wants to bring certain issues to the table. i will say this. the former prime minister of israel always had... well, ambassador to the united nations he had aa saying which was the palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. that should not become a paradigm for either the israeli government or for the palestinian parties. and that is seize this opportunity. it's a unique moment in time in the region because off strong israeli government with a strong prime minister, a palestinian thoort is seen by the palestinian people as the best opportunity to seek their aspirations. those who are trying to harm a peace process are not what they were just a year ago or two years ago. this is a historic moment of truth, they can be leaders that

have made significant progress on that path and the president said in the direct terms of what their self-interest is in... since they live together side by side, they have that responsibility to their people. as the president said just now at the united nations, no child should go to sleep fearing another rocket and no child in the gaza should not have the right or access to running water. and they as leaders have a responsibility to the people they represent to have a better... to work tirelessly for a better future. and then he... as the president said i think impatiently and since my wife often describes me as a very impatient person that >> rose: not just your wife. >> right. still overvalued quality in my view. but the fact is negotiations about negotiations need to come to an end and the hard work of making... negotiating peace must begin. >> rose: okay, tell me what risk you think arabs have to take and the palestinians have to take and the surrounding countries and what risk the israelis have

to take. what is thalt they have to do and what risk in terms of leverage is the united states prepared to do? this is what an action agenda is about. not just saying we're urgent, we're got to do do this because there's huge consequences. saying if you don't do this, this is going to happen. if you do this, this will happen. and we are... >> well.... >> rose: and we have political... we have a lot of political capital right now because a new president with a strong message to the muslim world... >> you should know. correct. and as the president said to both parties, first of all, i have a lot of other challenge. i don't have an inexhaustible 5789 of time but i'm willing to spend whatev time it takes to help but not more than you're willing to take. ly spend political capital, as he has in the heart of the arab world in cairo. talk about the right of the state of israel to exist in that region as a secure country and america will always have that friendship and it runs deep. and he has also said he's willing to challenge the israeli

government and friends when he thinks they're wrong, as he has shown on the settlingment, in a public way as well as in private. so they have his trust to be an honest broker. don't miss that opportunity. >> rose: all right, he believes net jew a practical person? >> well, i'm not going to give you... of course the president believes he's a practical person. he's a democratically elected leader who who is representing the people that elected him and what they elected him on... to do. and he has shown in the past that he'll take risks. the risks for peace in the president's view are less than the risks of not making peace. and when you... and, remember, you are always in a judgment of what are the... you know, the tradeoffs. are there risks to making peace? sure. how do they compare to risks of not making peace? and the risk to making peace are much more valuable... the risks to making peace are much more enriching and promiseing than the risks of not making peace because the status quo is

unacceptable because what you do in the status sqo you give the opponents of peace a veto. >> rose: let me move to afghanistan. >> i want to... this is a very important point to the peace process. if you don't make progress and engage in the process of making peace you h.i.v. hamas and hezbollah and iran dwhos are enemies of the peace process and vocal opponents of it-- a veto. and the worst thing to do by not moving is to give the opponents a veto on what's in your hands and your responsibility to not let them have. because you can do something at this moment in time. that was the challenge to both president abbas and.... >> rose: and the united states is prepared to be an honest broker. >> yeah. and the reason... some people said yesterday that was a photo-op. no, he challenged him publicly which means they now have to go home and face the people they represent about the opportunitys of peace versus the risk of not taking action. >> rose: what's been the impact of the publication in the "washington post" of the mcchrystal report for the

president? >> well, here's what's... i think all of us at the white house find interesting. the president asked for this report because he wants an honest assessment since we have a huge amount of resources committed. you have 68,000 american troops there, a tremendous amount not only of human resources-- our best citizens who have committed a life to the armed forces-- to assess where we are post the election. this is what he asked general mcchrystal. "i've been there four months, give me an assessment." everybody wants to rush to one thing: i need more troops. >> rose: well, wait, everybody wans to do that or is that what general mcchrystal said. that's the question. not whether everybody wants to do that. what did the report say? if we don't more resources within the next year, it may be too late to defeat. t taliban. >> but, charlie, as you know,

that's one question in a comprehensive review of the policy. now, one of the things we've seen before, if you commit troops before you think through strategy.... >> rose: okay, the president has been very clear about that. >> to quote... i've seen this movie before. when all you do.... >> rose: (laughs) what was the name of that movie in >> it's not pretty. when all you do is talk about troops and get to a conclusion, this is what the troops are without knowing the strategy.... >> rose: okay... sgu >> but but two other things. it's very important for the american people to know that the battle against al qaeda is ongoing all across the world. you saw it in somalia, the indian ocean, you see it here at home with state and local law enforcement and you see what we're doing in parts of pakistan. okay? and what is being operated in the after pack area, what's operated in the indian ocean, what's operating also with state and local law enforcement. that battle is going on. the troops that are there deserve a constant review of the

policy of whether we are doing and achieving the president's goals and what's best. >> rose: here's what troubles me about that. here's the question that comes out of that. from day one when richard holbrooke was appointed as a special representative to afghanistan and pakistan there was under way a review. it is now six months later and we're still review. >> no, no.... >> rose: you brought... because i interviewed him. the president of pakistan and the president of afghanistan to washington. i interviewed them. together. you've had a whole series of people coming in there. now all of a sudden we thought the strategy had been set. and that what general mcchrystal was doing was simply giving his assessment on the ground. now it seems like the president is saying, "wait a minute. the election didn't go the way... there's some real questions about that election." the president is saying things on the ground have gotten worse and the president is saying i need to reconsider because maybe we do not have the right

strategy. >> no, wait, charlie. off... there's a series of questions on a counterinsurgency. not just how many troops you put in. what's your partner ready to do. >> rose: that's nato. >> not just nato. >> rose: the afghanistan people. >> right. we had an election that let's just say is inconclusive at one level. but if you read the report and you read any review of any counterinsurgency, it's dependent on the government and its legitimacy to its people. now, the united states-- and, again, i'd like to remind people we've been at a war for eight years. it was once called the forgotten war. it was also once... it was for a long time, as i think mcchrystal report knows... said, he didn't realize, as he says in the report, how bad it was. that is, it was without a strategy and was not resourced. not for a year, not for two years, not for three years, for eight years in the region where al qaeda had launched the attacks. so the people that are fighting today have a strategy, general

mcchrystal is... incredible leadership is leading that effort with 68,000 troops the president ordered the additional 21,000, again, it's 68,000. the final parts of that are just arriving. prior to election, the president said "i want your assessment." and he's asked others for their assessment of how best to achieve the goals. it is only natural a president... and he wants to hear from all parties. >> rose: is it going to be hard to turn down the recommendation of the general that he put in command there and he said to him "i'll give you... in terms of talent, in terms of talent, the best generals we have to be there with you." >> you know, this is... you know charlie, this is one of the biggest decision it is president's going to make. >> rose: okay, tell me what the decision is. what is the decision and what are the options? >> the decision is what are the best means-- means-- to achieving our goal to root... to make sure that there's not a

safe place for al qaeda and al qaeda allie to do harm to america here at home and our interests around the world. that is the goal. now, the question is some people think there are different means to doing that. there are different ways. and the president wants to hear from all of them. he asked for... you know, it's one thing if there was a report produceed that the commander in chief didn't ask for. he asked for this because he wants an honest assessment. you don't just say "here's my strategy, i have 68,000 troops, don't talk to me again about this." a commander in chief has a responsibility when you have that much treasure-- both human and financial committed by the united states-- to constantly assess how best are we achieving that. the resources question of additional troops on top of the 21,000 that was ordered by the president, is that the best way or there another strategy? let me tell you this. don't think for a moment that

the armed forces aren't always constantly assessing internally whether they're on the right course. that is what the armed forces are doing, that is what your civilian leadership is doing and that is what the commander in chief and the president of the united states is doing. it would be totally irresponsible to make a decision and then say "i'm not going to review it." charlie, i know this, and this is not of the same weight, you constantly think about this show and the course you're on. of course you do. i as the chief of staff to the president, i'm always taking a step back and saying "are we doing this the right way? is there another way to do this?" the armed forces today and even prior to the mcchrystal report constantly took a.... >> rose: i assume this is white house, too, and the state department, too. with respect to something as important as afghanistan and the battle against the taliban and al qaeda and remembering the taliban gave a safe haven to al qaeda and refused to turn them out when the united states came and said "we want those guys." >> that's a complicated history

and it's not just that simple but correct in the end. there's been some reports, in fact, the taliban was willing to have a discussion, the united states didn't. so it's a.... >> rose: fair enough. it's left to history. >> left the historians about that complexity. the fact is, there's not a change in the objectives, there's a discussion. and i want you understand, the resources of troops is one piece. there's also whole.... >> rose: and what's the most important piece other than the resource of oops? an evaluation of what the afghans are prepared to do themselves? >> if you look at the history... that's exactly right. if you look at the history of counterinsurgency, you have a reliable partner to achieve the goal throughout the country. now, let me ask you a question: what's the g.d.p. of afghanistan? >> rose: i have no idea. >> let's just... it's about a billion dollars. >> rose: okay. >> what is the goals for armed forces that are necessary for afghanistan to achieve... to be a reliable partner that where

afghan is in the lead in finding the taliban. >> rose: what is it? >> north of 200,000 afghan troops in a country with a g.d.p. of a billion dollars. >> rose: so it's more a measurement of the g.d.p. than it is the nature of the geography and the tribal influence and all that? >> but you have different tribes.... >> rose: and a border with a country that offers a safe haven? >> right. you have different tribes, you have different ethnicities. what you have's in the northeast is different than what's in the southwest. now, wait a second. you have whether a country economically can afford to do who is being asked of it, to be a partner. there is a complexity. if you try to say the entire effort on afghanistan comes down to just what commit. the united states will make on troop size and troop commitment, you're missing the complexity of the situation. >> rose: and that... >> and that has happened in history and it is the wrong way to go about thinking through america's national.... >> rose: and that's the central message of the obama administration today on afghanistan. this is not just about troops. we will reach the decision about troops, we listen to our commander in the field but there are other factors we have to

listen to, including the afghans and our state department and everybody. >> and our allies. >> rose: and our allies. >> and the other thingly tell you is there isn't a general who hasn't come and spoken to the president who hasn't said that this is more complicated than just the troops. and when i said earlier is to reduce the argument to one qoshlt as if that is it, that is the... what is an essential ingredient, but the that is it, that decision can be made. the fact is, this is more complicated and it deals with the region, america's interest, what are do you achieve the goal and there's a civilian and international component that you weigh all those equities constantly. >> rose: all right, let me move to trade quickly because i have a couple domestic questions and you have to catch a plane and i want to make sure i get all this in. trade, the tariff on tires from china. are we looking at a protectionist trend that will influence trade around the sfwhorld the chinese are not happy about this, as you know. and a lot of american companies

are not happy about china's trade policies and their products having access to their markets and the united states and this president clearly has some... >> couple... three things, charlie, real quick. >> rose:... relationship with the unions that supported him. >> well, you can see on education he's willing to challenge allies when it comes to america's interests. he's taking on quote/unquote the teachers' union in his pursuit of charter schools, teacher testing, student testing and accountability. >> rose: and he's prepared to do the same thing with respect to trade, yes? >> three things real quickly. he's a firm believer in the both free trade. two, this was a case... a clear case as it relates to the violations. and, third, if you look over the next 20 years, 15 years, america's economic growth is going to come from more exports around the world. so while the action here is appropriate to this specific case, the president's commitment to free trade as a principle for

economic growth of the united states is unwaivering. >> rose: will we see more, though? more tariffs coming down? >> that's not... i wouldn't look at this and say there's more to come. that was particular case in this situation. if there's a clear violation, we'll do it. you know, part of having free trade is that when the rules are being violated, you've got to call it. >> rose: all right. is there... speaking of the economic recovery which you talked about. you know, in the health care reform effort, what has percolated to the top also is this question of how much of a health care debate do you think is about other things other than health care and what are they? and how do you see this battle? >> how do i see that battle? >> rose: yeah. >> well... how much more time we got? >> rose: 12 minutes. >> i'm joking. there's a.... >> rose: you know how much time we've got? as long as you want. (laughs) >> i almost got in trouble on

foreign policy.... >> rose: your title is not "staff member," it's "chief of staff." >> well, my wife likes to remind me it's "staff." >> rose: are (laughs) >> that's at home. >> that's too rich to just leave on the table. >> rose: (laughs) i know. i keyed it up for you, didn't i. >> well, first of all, at the core the issue of health scare about the fact that just ten years ago american families were paying $5,000 a year for health care, today on average they're paying $13,000. it's more than double. kaiser permanente just did a study a week ago showing it's going to double in the next ten years. now, the average american family cannot continue to see their incomes grow if health care costs are doubling every ten years. it is sapping the economic opportunity of... that's basically... that doubling of the health care expenses in the last ten years explains why median household income in the

last ten years shrunk in america. >> rose: and that's the reason so many people have tried to do something about health care reform and this administration at this time, according to the o.m.b. chief, may very well have it passed by congress by november 3. >> rose: right. well, here's the goal. you've got to solve this for america's economic competitiveness and the peace of mind for american families that they can always have health care they can afford. the president made a fundamental decision, the right decision, we're going to build on the system we have, employer-based health care. it has been tried, as you noted, by harry s. truman, lyndon johnson, richard nixon, jimmy carter, president clinton. there have been different successes at health care. medicare, medicaid, veterans health care, children's health care for children of parents who work without it. we have succeeded in society in those kind of incremental... not incremental, medicare is not... it is an incremental step but it

was for seniors individually. this is the most recent attempt at universal care and we are farther along than any of the past five efforts i just mentioned. >> rose: you're in sight. >> yeah, within sight. and i believe once the senate finance committee with chairman baucus gavels down his bill having been voted out of the committee we'll be so much more closer and then it's a matter of literally bringing those bills together and getting it there. what is it.... >> rose: so it will be decided in conference? >> well, there's no doubt it will be decided on the senate floor, the house floor, and in conference. >> rose: and what the senate will pass will be essential play chairman baucus... with some amendments? >> well, you know, you also have... there's amendments in the committee, you have to merging with senator dodd what he produced in his bill, which is very strong. but also, the average family you will now know that you cannot be discriminated against based on pre-existing conditions from insurance companies. you'll be able to always have access to health care even if you lose your job and keep the health care you have.

there will be other types of insurance reforms that basically for those who have health care have been denied that type of access. and for those who don't, you'll have affordable, accessible health care. now, the larger question mr. 's a collage to the political system that we saw both when president clinton tried universal health care and president bush tried social security reform. the challenge is can the political system in our government today as president bush has said in the past, can it still do big things to meet the challenges to make it more competitive and a better society. that is also the challenge of health care. is the system up to the task for big challenges? >> rose: and what's your answer? we'll see? >> that i believe we're going to pass it because it's essential to do. the members of congress know it's essential. >> rose: there are people who say this president cannot afford not to pass health care because of all that's been invested. it cannot happen. if he does not get health care

reform passed, some variation, he can't go... the outlook for congress in the next election will not be good. >> that's a political analysis and not wrong. i will say this: he has done a children's health care bill. he has passed the cobra reforms in the recovery act. he has made a... about a $40 billion investment in upgrading our health care i.t. so the records are electronic. but this is the final stone give something to the system that it doesn't have and insure... the report came out just the other day that you can both reduce the deficit and insure 30 million more people and it shows that the key to fiscal discipline in putting the american budget and its fiscal house in order starts and ends with health care reform. >> rose: what does the president say to those cit whix say the necessity of dealing with the economic crisis and health care and rescuing the auto companies and all of that has put this country on a dangerous road of too much government intervention

with no exit strategy. >> well, i'm a... first of all, on the financial side, you're already seeing that we're... the pieces are already are starting to be put in place that if you want to call them the kind of edifice to support the system when the system now is able to function on its own, we're going to start removing those... the scaffolding that was supporting the system in the middle of the crisis. not precipitously. on the other hand, it's clear that the need to give it financial assistance thanks now are paying back money with a profit. the type of assistance for banks to issue debt where the government had to guarantee it, they can now do without it. so those pieces are coming back as they should and receding, those waters are receding because the financial system is a more stable system than it was before. how that relates to what you just said.... >> rose: and has sustainability. and has sustainability and unemployment will go down. >> right. the goal is this. absolutely. the number one job for us on the economy is jobs.

the other piece that you asked, and what's caught up in the health care debate is what is the role of government today? and that is a very fair and point to be discussed and it's an important point to have. and the question is the president didn't come here, as he says, to run an auto company. it wasn't on his to-do list, it wasn't something he chose to do. the moment in time in crisis fored us to do something, forced us to also force the auto companies to do something they hadn't done for 20 years. they hadn't done what was finally forced on them, which is a restructuring of their balance sheet. they finally agreed to a mile standards as it relates to.... >> rose: so you're saying in the end this country thor president wants nothing do after the economic crisis and the recovery is under way, wants nothing do with running... with the u.s. government running financial sector businesss or any other manufacturing businesses in the countries. he wants to get out of that as fast as he can and is family viable. >> zero interest in running them

and, b, when we do emerge, that we put in place the... what he calls the new foundation both in health care, energy, financial regulation and education so the economy is on a sustainable path without government assistance and the way that we have mean? this crisis. >> rose: i know you will just hit this out of the park but this is a quote from a yale... >> i hate when you set the bar that way. >> rose: (laughs) yale profit david... >> are we playing on little league park for full national league park? >> rose: think of fenway park, okay? "the cautiousness of obama's six months of president shows a pattern of accommodations that land him on the far side of actual prudence. his instinct is to have all the establishments on his side-- read insurance companies, for example-- but tried bipartisanship every time and you will waste your life. and when did the public say it wanted bipartisanship?" what does the chief of staff say about bipartisanship so far? and into the future?

>> well, the president has been very direct about the fact he wants to always reach out and will always reach out and welcome ideas. and you saw it when he just gave his joint session speech the other day on health care. there are going to be bipartisan ideas and policies in this health care bill. be it an idea that senator mccain advocated during presidential primary. it will be in the bill. so the final product will be bipartisan. if republican or individuals decide to vote for it, that's their choice. >> rose: the policy will be bipartisan. whether you get votes... >> let's step back. >> rose: not whether you get republican votes or not. >> the republicans have decided in the worst economic crisis-- outside of three of them in the senate-- not vote for the recovery act that was so essential to getting us out of the... basically out of what was the jaws of a depression. two, a number of them, though,

more than three, joined us in passing the children's health care bill. seven if my number is exactly right. on the consumer credit card reforms that we had, 70 plus in the house voted. numerous in the senate. we've had certain successes. overall we haven't. now, you should also understand that may not be what we have tried to do, that may be a statement of what's happening on the republican side. but the president has been very clear. we will never, ever stop trying. whether they grab his hand.... >> rose: so you're always asking them for new ideas if they have any. >> always. >> rose: all right, fine. >> constantly. >> rose: health care will be passed by november 3 and it will essentially be what comes out of the finance committee. correct or not? >> health care will be passed before the members go home for thanksgiving and, b, it will not just be on the senate finance committee because the legislative process a place where both bodies get to contribute. >> rose: and it will not have a public option feature. >> i'm not going to say (laughs) that has to be what the conference has to negotiate but

i do think.... >> rose: can it pass with a public option feature? >> i think senate's been clear about the prospect there is. that doesn't mean in the house they're not going to come to the table and demand it. >> rose: i've got to get you out of here. listen to this, this is the from the "new york times," august 15. "the character of mr. emanuel as a profanity spewing operative has given a way to a nuanced view. a profanity spewing operative with a keen understanding of how to employ power on behalf of..." this was just a month ago. "a new bt with relatively little experience in washington. although rentlesslessly differential to the president, mr. emanuel is more chief than staff." (laughs) while some predecessors husbanded their authority, lest it be deluded, friends say he believed the more someone used power, the more power that person had. do you agree that? is that a philosophy you agree? the more you use power... >> the profanity piece or the

power? >> rose: the power. we all know the profanity piece. >> those are easy words. >> rose: that your view of power? you better use it, the more you use, the more you get. >> power is... in politics power is not static. it's not... and it doesn't mean you just use it willy-nilly. you use it strategically and surgically but as you use it and accumulate it, it's to be used... it's not to be used. you can't husband it. it's not like a thing you sit over here and put underneath blanket or underneath your pillow. it doesn't mean you use it randomly. it doesn't mean you're careless about it. you're strategic and surgical about it. as you use it, if you're successful, it accumulates to achieve other goals, not just as something you kind of husband over here. >> rose: here's one criticism i here. that you guys in the white house... >> one? >> rose: well, beyond power, that you guys in the house looking at the president, looking at the vice president, looking at the chief of staff and others are too congress-centric. you're too... you're listening

too much to the congress rather than... >> let me tell you right now, dwloong's congress's view. >> rose: (laughs) i'll tell you who we listen to, the american people. >> rose: how do you do that? >> you could see the other day in the president's joint session speech. he heard their concerns about certain things about what was he trying to accomplish in health care and he addressed a lot of that in what were they going to get out of it, what they didn't have to fare, what were the changes that he was seeking that would accrue to their benefit and so, you know, in a democratic system there is really one boss. and that's the american people. and so do we... you asked me, you know, are we too.... >> rose: too congressional-centric. >> you have two senators who are the president and vice president former senators and the chief of staff who's a former member of congress. but i will tell you, i don't

think congress thinks we're toocentric. the challenge to you politically will be if you ever lose touch in what the american people are seeking, overread what they're asking for. on the other hand, don't underestimate their desires for what they would like and their aspirations for you to accomplish. so i think president's view is there's really one boss here and where we have to be confidentlycentric and what i think sometimes happens in this debate in washington is you lose sight of what's happening in people's lives around the kitchen table, dining room table, in their family room. what is really on their mind. up into and has that occasionally happened in the last six months? >> it's almost impossible when you're doing what you're doing not to have that... not to kind of get off key. but you have a president and vice president who are really grounded in what their goals are and the... what they... what their sense of the american

people. i always say, you know, get out of the bubble, there's something going on, there's huge disparities between how the american people view something versus how washington view something. and remember we have an audience and a public that is our main... that is above everything else. >> rose: i have to let you go because you have a plane to catch. i thank you for coming on a very busy time at the united nations. i hope we can do this again. >> we will. thanks, charlie. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org